List Notes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Saying it returns "note paths" is a useful hint about output shape, but it omits ordering, recursion into subdirectories, pagination/limits, and permission requirements for a vault read.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scoping clause is placed immediately after the core purpose. It is arguably terse rather than bloated, which is the right failure mode.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool has only two optional parameters. Still, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves open whether the listing recurses and how the vault argument defaults.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that subdir narrows the listing, but says nothing about the vault parameter (e.g., whether null means a default vault or all vaults) and does not state whether subdir is recursive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("note paths") plus a scoping clause, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closest sibling, search_vault, which is the key ambiguity an agent faces here.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical "(or under subdir)" implies a scoping use case but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like search_vault. Nothing tells the agent when to list versus search, or what prerequisites exist.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.